Hi Dirk,
Thanks for bringing this up. I tend to agree with the idea of getting
rid of redundant examples and text from SVG.
However:
* Getting rid of the examples means authors have to do a lot of
cross-referencing to write a simple animation. Maybe we can still keep
some example(s)?
* SMIL Animation is a special self-contained profile which omits
features such as time containers etc. Referring to SMIL 3.0 makes things
a little more complicated because it's bigger and there's a lot of stuff
that doesn't apply to SVG even within the Timing and Synchronization and
Animations chapters. Maybe that's ok though?
In practice, implementers still refer to SMIL 3.0 and import updated
definitions into the subset outline in SMIL Animation.
Also, if we are to support time containers in SVG 2 and rely on SMIL for
the definition, we *have* to refer to something other than SMIL
Animation anyway.
It's really a matter of timing. Ultimately, we're seeking to replace
SVG's dependence on SMIL altogether with Web Animations. I'm not sure
how the timing is going to work out, but ideally I'd like to see SVG 2's
animation defined in terms of Web Animations only.
Best regards,
Brian